Developing a Complex Argument

To confuse the audience about the writer's stance.

To demonstrate the writer's comprehensive understanding of the issue, including opposing viewpoints.

To weaken the writer's own argument by acknowledging flaws.

To avoid addressing counterarguments directly.

To agree with the opposition's point of view.

To demonstrate why the opposing point is not as strong or relevant as it appears.

To ignore the opposing argument completely.

To prove the opposing point is correct.

Acknowledging the other side's point without disagreeing.

Presenting evidence and reasoning to weaken the opponent's claim.

Completely agreeing with the opposing argument.

Changing the subject to avoid the argument.

Ignoring, dismissing, and accepting.

Conceding, rebutting, and refuting.

Arguing, debating, and proving.

Accepting, ignoring, and proving.

When trying to confuse the reader.

When the topic is unimportant.

When you want to clarify and qualify your argument, avoiding ambiguity.

When you don't have much knowledge of the topic.

It concedes a point about the policy's potential benefits.

It rebuts the claim that the policy will boost the economy by presenting contradictory evidence.

It refutes the claim that the policy will boost the economy by proving it wrong.

It supports the claim that the policy will boost the economy.

To show respect for the opposing viewpoint.

To prove that an opposing point is entirely incorrect using evidence and logic.

To find common ground with the opposition.

To ignore the opposing argument.

Acknowledging a small area of agreement with the opponent.

Presenting data and logical reasoning that demonstrates the opponent's claim is false.

Avoiding direct confrontation by changing the subject.

Restating the opponent's claim in a weaker form.

The government should do something about the problem.

The government should address the issue of climate change.

The government should implement policies that promote renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, to reduce carbon emissions by 20% in the next decade.

The government should look into environmental concerns.

Ignoring the opposition's claims to maintain a strong stance.

Acknowledging that the opposing side has a valid point, but arguing that it doesn't undermine the main argument.

Presenting evidence that directly contradicts the opposition's claims.

Dismissing the opposition's claims as irrelevant.